ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 15.03.2016. The assessee required the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment which was supplied by the Revenue vide letter dated 29.09.2015 for reopening of assessment, which reads as under:- "On verification of Balance sheet the profits as per the Profit and loss Accounts were not adopted

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM FASTENERS LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

43B () which can be allowable only in the year in which it was actually paid. Further it is seen that as per Sl. No. 14(4) under schedule XVII- Notes on account - the short term compensated absences and long term absences are provided based on actuarial valuation made at the end of year thus falling squarely under section43

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

43B () which can be allowable only in the year in which it was actually paid. Further it is seen that as per Sl. No. 14(4) under schedule XVII- Notes on account - the short term compensated absences and long term absences are provided based on actuarial valuation made at the end of year thus falling squarely under section43

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 8, CHENNAI

reassessment:\ni) The Learned AO erred in reopening the assessment though the information pertaining to IBNR/ IBNER was available in the financials submitted in the course of original assessment\nii) The Learned AO erred in reopening the assessment for disallowing the unexpired risk reserve in respect of Third Party Motor Pool while the necessary information on the same was provided

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 8, CHENNAI

reassessment:\ni)\nThe Learned AO erred in reopening the assessment though the\ninformation pertaining to IBNR/ IBNER was available in the financials\nsubmitted in the course of original assessment\nii)\nThe Learned AO erred in reopening the assessment for disallowing\nthe unexpired risk reserve in respect of Third Party Motor Pool while\nthe necessary information on the same was provided

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

reassessment:\ni) The Learned AO erred in reopening the assessment though the\ninformation pertaining to IBNR/ IBNER was available in the financials\nsubmitted in the course of original assessment\nii) The Learned AO erred in reopening the assessment for disallowing\nthe unexpired risk reserve in respect of Third Party Motor Pool while\nthe necessary information on the same was provided

ORAGADAM CITY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, Addition u/s

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

reassessment proceedings were thus concluded u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 23.12.2019, determining the total assessed income at Rs.3,14,29,626/- making the following additions: (i) Rs.2,42,55,000/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) as income from other sources on account of excess share premium; (ii) Rs.2,41,899/- u/s. 43B towards unpaid statutory dues

PONNI SUGARS (ERODE) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LTU,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 23/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Esvin House, No.13, Vs. Of Income Tax, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Circle-1, Ltu, Perungudi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan: Aaccp 2779A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.R. Suresh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

u/s 43B. d) As the Government was to release the subsidy to the Bank in the normal course, the amount was credited to interest expense in accordance with applicable accounting standards that in effect correspondingly increased the profit Pending realisation, the amount due was debited to claims receivable. The banks informed the company that the subsidy will be credited

ACIT, TRICHY vs. JENNYS HOTEL PVT. LTD., TRICHY

In the result the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 43B of the Act due to non-payment of interest to M/s.Tourism Finance Corporation of India a Government of India Undertaking. B) Assessee’s Cross Objection:- The assessee has raised the following cross objections: 1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law facts and circumstances of the case to the extent

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI vs. BAY FORGE LTD, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as academic

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1462/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O No.76/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.1462/Chny/2019] The Dcit, Bay Forge Limited, Corporate Circle -1(2), Vs. Palayanoor Po Chennai. Vedanthangal Road, Pukkath Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram – 603 308. Pan: Aaacf 0453D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 23.03.2016. Revenue’s Appeal in ITA No.1462/CHNY/2019 2. The interconnected two issues raised by Revenue in the appeal is as regards to deleting of disallowance u/s.43B of the Act and deleting the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act on the basis of fresh evidence submitted